sliver that apparently the -- they don't get rights. 1.98 million, that's a different story, but as long as the only a small sliver, undermine their rights. i came to the floor to say that if we undermine the rights of one, frankly the rights of all are soon at risk. we have learned that throughout history. so i would hope that we would reject this bill which was seven or eight bills to start out with , put up here on a way that you could not amend them, suspension , in this transparent, open, let the house work its will process and we now come back with a closed rule. putting all the bills in one. putting the rule covering all seven bills and the chairman

shakes his head and shows pictures and believes those are facts. my friends, we ought to reject these bills because they're about all employees. they may affect only a small few at this juncture, but they are about all employees and undermining their rights and the respect we ought to accord to them for the service they give to the people of the united states of america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to address the individual from maryland, the gentleman from maryland as he lks about it's all about all employees and indeed it is because if we allow this continued behavior to go on, it tarnishes the good reputation workers that day in,

day out serve this country and the citizens so well. mr. meadows: and what we're talking about is giving a tool, a management tool to let managers manage. we're talking about not giving bonuses, mr. speaker. we're talking about not giving bonuses to those that are at the very highest, the 1%, while the rank and file goes so many times without being recognized or compensated for what they deserve. you know, we're talking about employees that make an average salary of $168,000 a year and yet we're talking about a privileged few that we need to make sure we address. so mr. speaker, it is about all the employees and it's about being fair. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i grant the gentleman from maryland 30 seconds, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: there's so much i'd like to say, particularly about the extraordinary discrepancy

of those folks who work in the private sector who perhaps have less responsibility on their shoulders, who make far less than their counterparts in the private sector. look it up. see the statistics. that's the case. the other thing i want to say to my friend, the law now provides for procedures to remove bad actors. do we have some bad actors in the federal service? we do. that's human life -- human experience. i will in just a second. i don't have any more time. if he'll yield you some time i'll be glad to yield you some ime. apparently the gentleman is not that interested in going forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: mr. speaker, just give me a moment to compose myself. you know, the gentleman, mr.

hoyer -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: the distinguished minority whip presumes to tell me about the private sector and how much people make. the problem is i came from the private sector, and i know the difference between management and labor, and i know the difference between people who elect to be the top paid management of entities and typically serve at will in the private sector. senior executive service is in fact people who choose to get additional pay for these responsibilities and they know what they're doing when they get into it and we're proud of most of them, the vast majority of them. but the fact is mr. hoyer has people who serve at will. he fires them without notice if he chooses to, and yet he cannot understand the fact that that picture i held up -- and i won't hold it up again. it's reprehensible even though it's been well seen. that man continued to work and get a bonus during the 10

months in which the g.s.a. administrator knew wrongdoing had occurred on his watch. it wasn't until he decided to retire -- be honest, my understanding, with criminal allegations that he even left and stopped getting his pay and today he enjoys a very comfortable retirement. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i ask how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has five minutes remaining. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. speier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, this bill is truly astonishing. we have serious issues before us. we should be focused on job creation, comprehensive immigration reform, providing nutrition assistance to children and seniors, postal reform or funding the government, but we're again debating partisan bills that stand no chance of becoming

law, including the 40th vote to defund or repeal the affordable care act. now you know as kids were told that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones so i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't given one bonus to one of their senior staff members. i hope that that is the case. that you have not given one bonus to a senior staff member. i hope furthermore that each of you is recording all of your staff when they answer the phone, because you want to know how they're treating your constituents. this particular bill is the height of hypocrisy. it is a blatant attack on federal employees saying that the current leadership is concerned about political messaging included through repeated attacks on hardworking federal employees. it's simply shameful to say we will belittle public service like that. i am a public servant, and i am proud to be a public servant.

and every federal employee that works in this building and virtually every federal employee that is out there in our communities is doing so because they believe in public service. i think that a federal employee is pretty crazy to be doing this job. they basically are being told that you're not worth very much, their integrity is constantly being questioned, they've had three years of pay freezes and furloughs. and they're supposed to continue to do public service. i want to address one section of this bill that would now allow individuals to record telephone and in-person conversations with federal employees. mr. cummings: i yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds. ms. speier: it would preempt the law in my state of california and the chairman's state of california and 11 other states that require the consent of all parties to a

conversation. it contains no exception for law enforcement, sensitive communications, the military or anything else. the f.b.i. has already indicated to us that they strongly oppose this bill because -- in their words -- this proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement and would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important criminal and counterterrorism investigations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. speier: i think this is ill-founded and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from the committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: i thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to

this legislation, the stop government abuse act. i'd feel much better about it if it was labeled the promotion of government abuse act, because it encourages government to roll back the clock and take away rights that orkers have earned working hard. can you imagine being fired after you've worked up to the ranks of the s.e.s., which is very difficult to get to and being told that you've been let go on the basis of an i.g. report? where is the equal protection under the law there? there is none. i think that it's unfortunate that we would treat our federal work force this way. they work hard, deserve better and i oppose this legislation.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: grant the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, two minutes. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, mr. chairman, this is one more bill designed to punish the federal work force and to discourage the very people that we need to join the federal work force. singling it out for harsher treatment than we would apply , ourselves or our work force frankly. you need to be able to reward your best workers. if this was a private sector corporation, our revenue would have dried up, our stock value would have imploded and our

employees would have left. but federal employees stick with it because they believe in this government. they hope that one day the legislative branch will appreciate what they do. i worked for the federal government 40 years ago. while i worked 10, 12 hours a day, there were people that did that longer than that and they did that for 40 years and did it in a dedicated way. this legislation isn't even properly thought through. no congressional hearing has been held on this measure that in fact jeopardizes law enforcement. it would intrude upon and disrupt sensitive phases of many federal, civil and criminal investigations and law enforcement efforts as well as litigation involving the government. we hear that from the national -- from the association of u.s. -- assistant u.s. attorneys. we hear from the f.b.i. employees that this proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to

cooperate with law enforcement, would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important counterterrorism investigations. we hear from federal law enforcement officers that it puts law enforcement activities at risk and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals. this is bad legislation. we know why it's being offered. we also trust that it's not going to become law. so you have to ask, why are we doing it? we're doing it to send a message? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cummings: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. and the message it's sending is that our federal employees are not to be valid. our managers are not -- not to be valued. our managers are not to be rewarded for good work. we want the federal government to shrink. we don't want it to carry out its necessary ack sifts.

and -- activities. this stuff has got to stop. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: at this time i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kelly: i hear about pay being frozen. the people i represent in district three of western pennsylvania, wish their pay was frozen. it's gone down steadily since 2010. we talk about the inability to get the economy going. well, i feel the same way. it's embarrassing. but at the end of the day we are not benevolent monarchs. we are stewards of the taxpayers' moneys. all we're doing is talking about accountability. only in washington is accountability a bad word. in the private sector, accountability raines. the market holds me accountable. why is that so foreign here to all of a sudden have bills,

have things in front of us that would hold people responsible and hold them accountable? i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: how much time do we have, mr. chairman? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, you know, as i've listened to all of these arguments, i cannot help but think about the many employees that we see every day, the hardworking employees who give their blood, sweat and tears to keeping our country together. and when we talk about our senior executives, i remind this body of something that mr. hoyer talked about and that is under current law, senior -- statutory be

list of reasons for which actions may be taken against senior executives cover a broad variety of situations. they are adequate to deal with the problems that we are addressing today. senior executives suspected of criminal activity may already be removed or placed on indefinite suspension without pay. . . . rather than deprive employees of their due process. d i know, mr. moran, you are right. there has been a relentless attack on federal employees. the fact is that they are in the third year of pay freezes. they have been asked to pay more for their pensions and get less.

we constantly here of negative comments about them and yet folks say, we love them. we appreciate them. they are often the ones that aren't appreciated and unapplauded. we have a bill here that takes away something very fundamental. and that is that due process rights. a lot of people may think about due process and say, it's no big deal. we'll take a little due process away and take a little bit there, but it is that due rocess that is the basic foundation of our constitution and of our democracy. and what we're talking about here i -- is making sure that employees are afforded that due

process. so you get somebody who says, ok, fine. fire them and then let them appeal to get their job back. well, that's not how it's supposed to work. they are to be given some type of notice and given an opportunity to simply address whatever the accusations are. and a lot of times we may look at folks and say, well, we don't like what they allegedly did, but the fact is we still have that little document which to me is a big document, that we must adhere to. and so, mr. speaker, i would urge all members of the congress to vote against this bill and give us a chance to come back perhaps make the appropriate amendments so it will be more suitable for the congress to vote on. with that, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from from north carolina. >> i want to clarify one thing, when we talk about a freeze, when is a freeze not a freeze? only in washington, d.c. over the last three years 99.4% of federal employees got increases. out of every 1,000 employees, only six were denied an increase and the record needed to be clarified. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 4 1/4 remaining. mr. issa: i will close. mr. speaker, covers -- controversy comes in all forms, sometimes it's legitimate and sometimes there are differences unresolved, but sometimes you find yourself befuddled.

these three bills passed on a voice vote. doesn't mean that our colleagues love them. it meant they were given a full opportunity to evaluate these, to offer amendments to have up-or-down votes on them. many of the suggestions they made were taken into account on many of the bills marked up during that long day. many of the things being brought up here today simply were not brought up, not because they didn't know about this. when you have a bill that -- a version of this bill almost identical on december 19 last year, passed by 402-2. 402-2. that means you have people that today are opposed to provisions that they already voted for. i repeat, opposed provisions they already voted for. i don't have the names of the two people who voted no. they have the right to express

why they voted no last december. but i can tell you this. hen you have to only terminate work - 4/100 of 1% of the force, if you do it at all, you must do it because you determine, the head of the agency, not just anyone, the head of the agency has to determine that the employee has done something seriously wrong in regards to negligence of duty or misappropriation of funds or mall feesance. they have to determine that the employee did it knowingly and they have to consider it necessary and advisable and to protect this enterprise. on top of that, the employee has to be told why they are being terminated. and i think that's important because the ranking member and i had a woman in a hearing that i was shocked, actually shocked. she's been on leave without pay

and to this day, an investigation ongoing, months into it, she's never been told why she is on a leave without pay. to be honest, she is a member of the senior executive service. maybe she would fall under this bill, but in order to fall under this bill, some things would happen. the head of the agency would have to make a decision of wrongdoing and would be held by that decision being reasonable after the fact. they would have to have told her why she is being removed. and she would have already had an opportunity in front of the merits system protection board and the federal circuit. she would have had this due process and months go by and she doesn't know and she is on administrative leave. this is a tool. they don't have to use it. if they use it, they have to make sure it is for sappropriated funds or mal

feesance. these are extremely serious, extremely small part and highly compensated people and few bad actors, misappropriation of funds, can be removed. they still have their rights. we knew this was constitutional. and the complaint we seem to have in committee for hours was something that i want to share with you, mr. speaker. members of my committee, when talking about the idea that only 1/3 without special exception of employees in any agency could receive bonuses rather than the 75% or 80% you heard about today, they said, well this is their right. they negotiated with that. you are interfering with their contract. mr. speaker, the u.s. government does not allow negotiation in collective bargaining or otherwise for wages. we have a standard scale.

bonuses were created for only one purpose and that was to reward good behavior and incentive. these bills are well thought out and only controversial today because the minority wants to make them controversial to create a controversy. i urge support. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 322, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide limitations on bonuses for federal employees during sequestration to provide for investigative leave requirements for members of the senior executive service to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions with individuals and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. issa: the yeas and nays, please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 239. the nays are 176. the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to section 9 of house esolution 322, h.r. 1541, h.r. 2579 and h.r. 2711 are laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a

co-sponsor of hse lution -- house resolution 319. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . >> i have unanimous consent to remove susan davis from h.r. 2783, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

ou

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to the house rules, i would ask that r. 367 be brought up for immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for general leave. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on h.r. 367. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 322 and rule 18, the chair declares

the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 367. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, to preside over he committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 367. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8, title 5 united states code to provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the chair: the bill is considered read for the first time. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, each will control 30 minutes.

mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. earlier this month, president obama announced that he would once again pivot to the economy. the bottom line of his speech, after 4 1/2 years of the obama administration, quote, we're not there yet, end quote. the president is right. we're not there yet. economic growth is the key to job creation and recovery, but america's growth rate is anemic. from 2010-2012 it barely averaged 2%. in the fourth quarter of 2012, it was 1/4 of 1%. according to the most recent estimates. these figures translate into deep economic pain for america's workers and families. the june, 2013 jobs report showed an increase of 240,000 in the number of discouraged workers, those who have quit looking for a job out of

frustrn pe working part-time, who really want full-time work past 8.2 million, that is a jum of 322 tchourks in just one month. worst of all, the truest measure, the rate that includes both discouraged workers and those who cannot find a full-time job continues to exceed 20 million americans. that rate rows from 13.8% back to 14.3% in june. america's labor force participation rate has fallen to levels not seen since the carter administration. median real household income is 5% lower than in june of 2009 when the recession officially ended. median incomes are supposed to rise, not fall. the obama administration has managed to buck the historical trend. worse, median incomes are 9% below the peak they reached in

january of 2008 before the financial crisis. the president is indeed right. we're not there yet. but what the president missed in his speech is that it is hisadm are responsible for america still remaining so deep in this economic hole. to see how true that is, one only has to look at the historical record. the current recovery is the weakest on record in the post-world war ii era. the contrast that ronald reagan achieved is historically stark. the reagan administration, through policies opposite to the obama administration, had achieved a recovery that recovered 7.8 million more jobs than when the recession began, real per capita gross domestic median rose by $391 and household income rose. surely the administration knows this. instead of fixing the problem by

changing the policies, the obama administration knows only one response, double down, increase taxes, increase spending and increase regulation. the number of new major regulations the obama administration has issued and plans to issue, generally regulations with more than $100 million, is without modern precedent. testimony before the judiciary committee this term and during the 112th congress has plainly shown the connection between skyrocketing levels of regulation and declining levels of jobs and growth. to make matters worse, it is increasingly the case that when congress refuses to unable the administration's flawed policies through legislation, the administration issues new regulations to achieve an end run around congress. the reins act is one of the most powerful measures we can adopt to end the administration's flawed policies on the american

people. it achieves that result in the simplest and clearest ways by requiring an up or down vote before any new major regulation can be imposed on our economy. some say the reins act will mean the end to major new regulation even when new regulation is needed but it does not prohibit new regulations. it establishes the preliminary, no major regulation without representation. by restoring to members of congress who are accountable to the american people the responsibility for america's costlyiest regulatory decisions, the ragse act provides congress with the much needed tool to check the one-way cost ratchet termed by the obama administration and washington's regulatory bureaucrats. i thank mr. young for introducing this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote for the reins act and i reserve the

balance of my time. . . cone coin i rise in strong -- mr. cohen: i rise in strong opposition to the reins act. as i noted during our extensive debate in the judiciary committee on this bill, it reminds me of a movie, "groundhogs day," yes. i feel like bill murray, it's that day over and over again. we come back to the same bill. because we extensively debated this bill in the last congress and bills very similar to it in this congress and again we're here debating this bill. which by any sensible measure by probably a civics student in 10th grade or less would know this is a seriously flawed bill that will impede legislation and hurt the american public. it's based on a premise that regulations by themselves stifle job creation, a rather unique concept that we have come to debate in our committee and now on the floor.

h.r. 367 threatens to undermine vital protections that ensure safety and soundness of the entire range of societal needs. from food safety to clean air and clean water, to workplace safety, to consumer product safety, to financial stability. it does this by bringing most important federal rule makings, including those that protect the public in the way of health care, the affordable care act and the implementation thereof and the dodd-frank wall street reform act aimed at keeping us from the catastrophic days back in 2008 or 2009 when the world was coming to an end because of drisktives -- derivatives, it takes the implementation of these two bills to a screeching halt. a result that would put at risk the well-being of millions of americans. both from fiscal health and physical health. the reins act will require that both houses of congress pass and the president sign a joint resolution of approval within 70

legislative days before a major rule can take effect. in the house, a committee of jurisdiction would have but 17 legislative days to consider a joint resolution of approval, after which it would automatically be discharged from the committee and sent to the full house. certainly not enough time to do a good job of reviewing the regulations. and the house must consider such a resolution either on the second or fourth thursday of every month. assuming that the house is even in session on that thursday. the bill also defines a major rule as one of having at least $100 million economic activity or having one of a new of other economic impacts -- of -- one of another economic impacts. that means if the reins law -- act had become law in this year, there would only be five days left in 2013 for the house to consider 50 to 100 major rules and while the other side loves

gas, as we've seen with the farm bill and t-hud, they can't pass it. given those traps set forth in the bill, no major rule would ever go into effect. this in turn threatens agencies' abilities to protect america's health, safety and well-being. it's a way of stifling the opportunity to protect americans. another concern with the reins act is the influence of industry lobbyists over rule making would tremendously increase. k-street would love it. given the complexity of the rules at issue, and the expedited time frame of congressional consideration, members would instead be bombarded with visits, phone calls and talking points from industry lobbyists who would no doubt take advantage of the reins act's short-circuited process to shape members views about a particular rule -- members' views of about a particular view. on top of all the problems of this bill, it is simply unnecessary. first to the extent that pro ponalts are concerned with congress' accountability for agency rules, there are already

numerous tools at our disposal to shape rule making. congress can rescind its authority to an agency if an agency acts beyond what we intended. congress can also disapprove a rule under the congressional review act process, defund enforcement of a rule or an agency through its appropriations and authorization power, overturn specific rules through legislation and conduct regular oversight activity. second, to the extent that the reins act's proponents claim that the bill is necessary, because the obama administration has inundated the country with costly regulations, the facts simply do not bare this out. just because you say obama doesn't mean it's bad. most americans like one, e.s.a. been elected twice -- like obama, he's been elected twice as president. the former director of the office of information and regulatory affairs noted that in president obama's first four years in congress, he's issued fewer new federal regulations than any other of the four presidents who came before him,

including ronald reagan. noted president has revehicled -- revoked hundreds of rules that have provided savings for government, businesses and consumers. congress has already considered and rejected congressional consumer scenes -- schemes in the past. for instance, chief justice john roberts, not exactly a flaming liberal, criticized legislation that was similar to the reins act back in 1983 when he was an society white house counsel. he objected that such legislation would hobble agency rule making by requiring affirmative congressional assent to all major rules. it would seem to impose excessive burdens on the regulatory agencies. so before chief justice roberts saved the a.c.a., he spoke out on this legislation as well. finally, the broader premise underlines the reins act that regulation stifles economic growth and job creation is simply false. it's pretty incredible that the proponents of anti-regulatory bills like the reins act continue to make this claim in

light of the fact there's absolutely no credible evidence establishing the fact that regulations have any substantive impact on job creation. but it's not -- but do not just take my word for it. listen to some respected republicans and conservatives. bruce bartlett, senior policy analyst in the reagan and george h.w. bush administration said, republicans have a problem, people are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but republicans have nothing to offer them. the g.o.p. opposes additional government spending for jobs programs and in fact favors big cuts in spending that would likely lead to further layoffs at all levels of government. these constraints, mr. bartlett said, have led republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principle factor holding back employment. they assert barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations which has created uncertainty in businesses. he concludes, no hard evidence is offered for this claim, it is simply asserted as self-evident

repeated d -- endlessly as if, if you say is enough, people will believe it. on the related argument that regulations create business uncertainty, mr. bartlett has said, regular uncertainty is a canard invented by republicans that allow them to use economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. in other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. that was bruce bartlett. susan dudley, who headed the office during george w. bush, has been quoted as saying it is, quote, hard to know what the real impacts of regulations are. she was also unaware of any, quote, empirically sound way, unquote, to aelse is the impact that proposed rules have on jobs. and one of the many hearings held on this issue in the last congress, the majority's own witness clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymie job creation. christopher demouth with a very

conservative american intersurprise institute said, quote, the focus on jobs can lead to confusion and regulatory debates and that, quote, the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminative, end quote. the reins act is seriously flawed and it's -- at its very conception, based on the false premises that regulation kills jobs. ultimately it will only serve to needlessly heighten risks, the health and safety, financial and fiscal, of the american people. i strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to h.r. 367 which i feel confident will pass this house and meet a timely death before it gets to the light of day in the senate. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman from yinched is recognized for five -- indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, i rise

today in support of h.r. 367, the reins act. some of my democrat friends want to characterize this bill as an antiregulation bill. but a vote for the reins act isn't a vote against regulations. it's a vote for better regulations, it's a vote in favor of a smarter regulatory system. it's a vote to balance broad economic interests against the narrow jurisdiction of individual federal agencies. it's a vote to give the people most affected by regulations a louder voice in the democratic process. now, yesterday the white house threatened to veto this bill if it passes. in their veto threat they wrote, quote, maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility between the two branches is essential to ensuring that the nation's regulatory system effectively protects public health, welfare, safety and our environment while also promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation, unquote.

i agree more. that's exactly why i introduced this bill in january. for those like me who are truly concerned about maintaining an appropriate allocation of responsibility between the two branches, regardless of who occupies the white house, it's worth noting the executive branch only derives its power and only invokes its responsibility to issue a given regulation when the legislative branch authorizes it to do so. and only in accordance with the legislation passed by congress. however, this allocation of responsibility has been thrown out of whack because congress has taken to the habit of passing sweeping, ambiguous laws that leave it to federal agencies to sort out the details. this is typically done for the purpose of rushing bills through congress in order to meet a political timetable. or because certain members would prefer to avoid working through

the controversial details. it's much easier to leave such decisions to unaccountable rule makers after all. obamacare is a great example of this phenomenon. as the minority leader said when she served as speaker, we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it. it turns out that's exactly the case. they had to pass the bill so h.h.s. and the i.r.s. and our vartable alphabet soup of agencies could tell us how the law would actually work. in fact, we still don't know exactly what's in the bill because we're still waiting on more regulations. if the reins act were in place, none of the major regulations that are issued for obamacare or other sweeping laws would take effect until congress approved them. this would make our regulatory process smarter for a number of reasons. chiefly because we currently regulate in silos. now, when h.h.s. employees are drafting a regulation about health insurance, for instance,

they narrowly focus only on insurance. they aren't too worried about economic growth. if the i.r.s. is drafting a regulation on tax collection, they are likely to focus narrowly on taxes. they don't take much into account job losses and income effects. we need a congress that can comprehensively look at these things, a body that can, in the words -- in the words of the white house, protect public health, welfare, safety and our environment, while also promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation. all at the same time. so as we learn what's actually in obamacare and other laws, why is it such a bad idea to ensure that individual, rank-and-file americans get to weigh in through their leapted -- through their elected representatives on details that impact their pocketbooks, consume their time and govern countless aspects of their daily lives?

the truth is, it's not a bad idea. . in fact, i would predict that congress would deliberate about these large ambiguous bills if the regulators didn't get the final say. in the end, we would end up with better, clearer legislation in a diminished role for unelected rule makers. more americans could stay engaged in the law-making process and voice their concerns in a meaningful way. and politicians, politicians would be unable to hide behind so-called unelected bureaucrats because the american people could hold congress accountable for the rules coming out of washington. i implore my colleagues to join me in restoring accountability. support this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back.

the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair will rise to nformally receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the will be in order. the chair will receive a message. >> mr. speaker, a message from the senate. >> i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that s. senate has agreed to con.res. 22 an adjournment of the house of representatives in which the concurrence of the ouse is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its seating.

the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: before i yield to mr. connolly, i would like 30 seconds and set the frame for what we are here. we are asking for all rules and regulations to be approved by both the house and the senate and signed by the president before it goes into effect. that message is one of the few things we can agree on. the senate agreed on the time we can adjourn. 17 bills have made it through here in seven months and talking about 50 to 100 rules. not going to happen. i yield to mr. connolly up to five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank my friend from tennessee and thank him for his leadership on this bill. listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle, i urge them all to reread "the jungle," because that's with where you would take us.

you would take us to a world where there was no federal oversight over the food supply and no oversight of child labor, there was no oversight on workplace safety in america. and tragedies ensued. america's water, america's air is cleaner, more breatheable and healthier today precisely because of regulation. it only entails a cost. never entails a benefit, is absolutely false. and needs to be rejected by this body. sadly, mr. chairman, it's once again shaping up to be a lost summer for congress. there are a number of issues ripe for debate, not this one, will be left to wither on the vine as members leave town for the next five weeks. that's frustrating after this year began with so much promise. i was pleased toe part of a

bipartisan coalition that avert the fiscal cliff. that same bipartisan coalition banded together to provide emergency aid to communities ravaged by superstorm sandy. our success didn't stop there. we came together on a bipartisan basis to reaffirm the strong support for the violence against women act after it languished in this body because leadership refused to compromised. at that point, people were beginning to wonder if the 113th congress had gotten the message that the american people want us to work together to get things done, not just make cheap political points. but sadly, that progress was not sustained. the first issue appeared after the senate's adoption of its first budget in nearly four years. i guess my friends on the other side of the aisle, the house

republicans, who repeatedly beat up on the other chamber for not doing its job with respect to the budget are now dumbfounded that they did in fact pass one because it has been four months and still have yet to appoint members to the conference committee they claim they wanted. the senate managed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. our republican colleagues may talk a good game on immigration, but that's all they have done so far in the house. no one of the bills has come to this floor for consideration. and just recently, house leaders allowed extreme partisanship to not only derail a bipartisan farm bill, but also cast aside a critical safety net that was founded on a bipartisan basis in both the senate and the house decades ago to protect families needing help putting food on the

table. the list of unfinished business continues to grow. but where is the urgency to resolve them? i was puzzled to see house republicans bring up a so-called jobs bill that provides less funding than what we did the previous year and they had to pull it from the floor in the face of bipartisan opposition. their parting shot will be the 40th attempt to repeal part or ll of obamacare. that's 40. when we return from this ill-timed recess, congress will just have nine legislative days the ch a deal in keeping government open beyond the end of the fiscal year and at that time, we will be bumping up against the debt ceiling. we managed to suspend that debt ceiling earlier this year but we

haven't rekindled bipartisan cooperation. the american people aren't taking five weeks off like we are and so we shouldn't either. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield four minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on regulatory reform, commercial and antitrust law, the gentleman from alabama, mr. back us. the chair: -- bacus. . bachus: the gentleman from virginia has said we have avoided the fiscal cliff. i had no idea that the deficit and the debt had gone away. i have been told they are increasing by billions of

dollars every day. we have another difference of opinion across the aisle. our colleagues are saying we need more federal regulation, those that are covered by this bill that cost $100 million or more. we on this side of the aisle think that we can do well with a few, a few less more regulation. yes, every president has added regulation. every administration. and we are supposed to say that that is a good thing? regulations today cost $11,000 per american worker. now, that's not taxes. that's not your social security. that's not their expense. that is just the federal regulation. 14% of our national income,

holtz g to dr. douglas eeg and, 14% is being absorbed by federal regulation. 14%. now the gentleman from tennessee says there are all these regulations before and the obama administration, they passed very few regulations. well, not according to dr. holes eeg and. he says in the last four years, the obama administration has added half a trillion in regulations. it may be ground hound dog but half a trillion dollars deeper in federal regulation. but let's talk about one family. let's talk about one family and what regulations mean to them.

one regulation costs american milies to pay $20 more for a ronchialdialator despite the fact that the fed -- f.d.a. said they aren't going to allow a subsidy, so they banned it. and immediately in 2008, the die of these bronchial lateors went up to $30. do you know what the effect of that was? the "new york times" described this as a rough transition to new asthma inhalor, because several million americans suddenly were paying more. mr. goodlatte: i yield an

additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. bachus: several million americans were suddenly being forced, some elderly and ildren to pay $20 more for a $7 or $10 item. a lot of them couldn't afford it. there were more asthma attacks and there were increases and that was despite the fact that in montreal in 1987, there was n accord that said number one, that substance and a medical inhalor was essential and accepted from the accord because he ozone was improving, number

one. but number two, evenf you banned all nonindustrial discharges of ozone-depleting substances, all of them, it wouldn't do any good. it would have an insignificant effect. and of the non-industrial discharges, the amount from the tesmile.s was infant the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee is reck -- recognized. mr. cohen: he is one of the finest members of this house and i yield five minutes to mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to h.r. 367, the reins act. i have profound concerns with the ragse act.

this bill would undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public interest. it is a continuation of the majority's obstructionist approach that led to sequestration. this deregulatory train wreck threatens us to the days before the wall street collapse, a problem. this brain trust pulled the transportation bill yesterday. this isn't good enough for these republicans. and now we consider the reins act, the bill that would require congress to have the final say on regulations. stop and think about that. the same house republicans that could not vote to fund transportation now wants to have the final say on all major rules. never mind that congress already

has that power under the congressional review act. never mind that house republican leadership tried the same maneuver in 2011. if republican leadership truly believed in growing the economy and creating jobs, we would have come together with a grand bargain long ago. we could even vote on job-creating legislation to strengthen the middle class, but instead this republican congress insists on voting on a messaging bill that will go absolutely nowhere. few americans are surprised by yet another republican leadership failure that has become par of the course. mr. speaker, millions of americans are still out of work. as we go back to our districts over the recess, i hope my republican colleagues can look into the eyes of the poor and the unemployed in their communities and say don't worry.

i voted for a messaging bill to deregulate america. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i it's my pleasure to yield two minutes -- it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 367, the reins act of 2013. as a member of the subcommittee on regulatory reform and a co-sponsor, i'm pleased to see a good reform bill like reins come to the floor. regulations impose hundreds of billions of dollars. in fact, trillions of dollars on family farmers and small businesses, which significantly effect our economy and job

creation in southeast missouri. businesses and individuals face an uncertain regulatory future and this gives them pause as they seek to start or grow their businesses to encourage economic growth and create jobs. the reins bill adds just a little more certainty to the process. it allows these individuals to hear about regulations and give input to congress before they vote up and down on an agency rule. as i travel across missouri, i always run into business owners, family farmers and individuals who have felt the sting of government and their overreach. with the over 170,000 pages of rules and regulations effecting their lives. the pie in the sky regulations here in d.c. have real effects back home. the voice of the american people through their elected representatives should be the

determining factor in government regulation, not from a beltway bureaucrat. i urge your adoption of the reins act. i yield the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you. i yield three minutes and 53 seconds to the gentleman from kentucky -- connecticut. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes and 53 seconds. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to oppose this misguided piece of legislation which would erect new obstacles and red tape to protecting american lives. mr. courtney: at the outset, let me reiterate what mr. cohen said which is that congress already has the power to disapprove any rule through the congressional review act, through appropriations process and through other authorizing legislation. h.r. 367, let's face it, is essentially an attempt to impose a procedural choke-hold on protecting american citizens and i want to talk about one of those proposed rules which is now pending at the occupational

safety and health act which is a rule to prevent the continuing litany of workplace fire and explosions from combustible dust. unfortunately the rules committee didn't see fit to an allow an amendment by george miller to exclude that rule from the underlying bill. it has been abundantly clear for a decade that federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires. in 2003 the chemical safety board found that protections to stop these explosions were grossly inadequate. the board identified hundreds of other combustible dust fires and explosion, causing at least 119 fatalities, 718 injuries over the last 15 years, and the investigators themselves are not alone in demanding action. tammy of kentucky testified before congress recently about how her brother sean was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel plant in 2003. she told us how he was left lying on a smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust burned through his

flesh and muscle tish aye and each breath -- tissue and each breath causes internal organs to be burned even more. sean wasn't the first to die at work this way and he hasn't been the last. it has been more that -- than five years since the imperial sugar explosion in georgia, an explosion that killed 14 workers. it caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because an unchecked accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions leveling the plant. these workplace explosions have not stopped. there have been 49 major combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 18 and injured 131 workers since imperial sugar. more recently, five workers were killed in three separate events at a factory north of nashville because an iron powder processing plant failed to obey repeated dust hazards. each of the five left behind a wife and child, one had four children under 11. another became a grandfather the day before he was killed. that's where osha comes in.

in 2009 osha finally started work on a rule to reduce the risk of these explosions there. will be small business panels, risk assessments, public hearings and plenty of opportunities for comment. despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special interests a new way to block needed protections and they are already lining up to kill a rule they disease like. the sad truth -- dislike. the sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working families and their widows. i urge my colleagues to vote down this bill and if i have another few seconds, i just want to say, we're now hours away , 640,000ve-week recess d.o.d. civilian employees are looking at congress asking, why they should be furloughed for the next eight weeks, losing 20% of their pay, some of whom are doing critical work for our national security, and yet not once in the over 200 days since this congress was sworn in, has the governing majority brought a ll to this floor to turn off

sequester and make sure that these people, who are doing critical work for our national security, can do their job. that's what we should be focused on. we should cancel the recess, turn off sequester and end the endless debate about bills that are headed nowhere. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. rothfus: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of the reins act. the reins act is needed frankly because for decades now congress has abdicated its responsibility for law making to unelected federal elites in the executive branch. they often create overbearing regulations that stifle innovation, reduce productivity, prevent businesses from growing

and adding jobs and increase prices on everything from gasoline to groceries. don't get me wrong, some regulations are good and necessary. but they come with substantial costs and there is not enough accountability for them. and i would look forward to voting for good regulations and i would think my colleagues across the aisle would also look forward to voting for good regulations and taking credit for them. at this moment, however, the obama administration has regulations in the pipeline that could cost the american people more than $50 billion. the competitive enterprise institute estimates the regulatory burden to be almost $15,000 a year per family. another study estimates that just six e.p.a. regulations will cause the loss of almost 10 million jobs. these rules are written by unelected elites with very little accountability to individual citizens across my district, in western pennsylvania, from elwood city

to somerset county. requires your elected representatives to be more accountable for regulations. very simply, if the regulations will cost american morse than $100 million, then congress has to vote on it. good regulations will be approved and others will not. but your representative will have to declare a position. and you can hold them accountable for their votes. mr. chairman, the reins act makes sense to me. it makes sense to my constituents in western pennsylvania and encourage my colleagues to support the bill and i thank the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, may i ask how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 11 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from tennessee has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr.

rokita. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chair and thank the chair for yielding the time. i rise in support of the reins act and rise in support of the man who introduced it, my friend and colleague from indiana, mr. young. i want to start out by addressing something the gentleman from tennessee debated and talked about just a little bit earlier. he said that we don't get anything done here. and i'd like to take some opposition to that. just this week we solved, in a permanent fashion, mr. chairman, the student loan situation. and we zoint do it with -- and we didn't do it with democratic-inspired price fixing, we tied it to the market. now, it's true, it was very much a republican bill when it left this house and then it was wisely adopted by the senate in agreement last weekend and it came back over here for a final vote, 99% the same as it left. that's getting something done. that is real.

but let's take the gentleman's point a little bit further. let's say sometimes we don't get something done. let's say sometimes we don't agree. the gentleman's solution is to let the unelected, unaccountable , nameless, faceless bureaucrats handle it. who aren't directly elected by anymore -- by anybody. that is an abdication of the constitutional duty of this house. of this branch of government. it is our duty to make the laws. it is our duty to make the rules. and not only is it our duty to debate and pass legislation, hopefully not every time with our names on it, but it's also our constitutional duty to oversight the executive branch and that's exactly what the reins act acts to do. how dare we decide we don't want to address, we don't want to tackle the big issues, mr. chairman? because they're too controversial. let the bureaucrats do it. that's not the way to run a

government. that's not the way to run this branch of government and it's not the way to run this house. it's time this body start doing its second and equally important constitutional duty and that is oversight of the executive branch and the reins act again helps us do that in large measure and for that reason i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: yes, sir. ms. jackson lee? i'd like to yield five minutes to the distinguished, articulate and experienced member of the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee from houston, texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for his distinguished leadership and friendship and the chairman of

the full committee because i believe that it is fair to have a difference of opinion. it is also fair to say that there are times when we have a great opportunity to work together. and i believe that the gentleman mentioned my tenure on the judiciary committee, so let me document for my colleagues it's reins act goes around -- colleagues, the reins act goes around and around and around and around. it is constantly repeated and reintroduced and it constantly fails. for the new members on my friends on the other side of the aisle who are standing up and talking about what a great impact this would have, using old data and misinterpretation. for there is no real documentation that the reins act going to stop $1.5 trillion in excess cost. in fact, the authors of the study that my friends are using

was assessed by the congressional research service and i know when i speak to the american people and my colleagues, they want to debunk all of this procedure and say enough is enough. but the c.r.s. showed that the study was flawed, but more importantly the authors said, we never intended for this to determine benefits to regulation . our studies have nothing to do with it. we cannot document the $1.5 trillion or the billions of dollars that our friends say that they're going to lose. they know full well that there is a procedure of disapproval that congress can respond to the needs and the questions of the american public. but what they do not tell you is that this procedure -- oh, i hate to talk about it, please let me apologize, but if you hear it, your eyes will roll back in your head. for what has to happen now is that the agency is doing its work, the d.o.d., the health and human services, the department

of education. they are doing their work under existing law. they're trying to work on clean air and clean water, safe toys and safe cars and safe workplaces. by the way, i offered an amendment to exempt children's regulations, for babies 2 and under. and i was denied by the majority in the republican rules committee. so that babies who need safe cribs and toys now have to have this happen. let me tell you. unless both houses of congress pass a joint resolution, let me tell you how long that might take, two years, three years, five sessions, who knows? and then such rule within a fixed 70 legislative-day period. if they don't pass the joint resolution it kicks over into the next congress. meantime, babies' heads are driven through cribs, those of us who are mothers knew that era. it hasn't stopped.

each time you have to decide how newborns are impacted or toys they choke on, the agency can't put a regulation in. mothers understand that. can you imagine a resolution of two houses of congress? right now, we can't even get a budget resolution going forward. i tell you what the american people want us to do, not the reins act that goes around and around, we will do it in the 114th, it does not save money. the american people want a solution-based budget process. they want to stop laying off hard-working defense workers and homeland security workers, hard-working department of education workers that are trying to help this country be better.

they want us to reduce the deficit. that is a good thing. they want us to create jobs and be fair to the middle class. i coom from texas. one of the worst disasters to occur was in west texas. the tragedy and the devastation of the loss of our fellow americans in an explosion that should not have happened. what was the cry? what was the federal government doing? what was the regulatory scheme in order to prevent whatever ignited that terrible tragedy to see the loss of first responders, the federal government is an umbrellas on a rainy day. fix the problems of regulation one by one. if there is one that is undermining small businesses, we are happy to do the disapproval process and you can be assured that the american people will cry out. but i can tell you there is no proof, no legitimacy, but no

documentation, no stories of i hate the federal government. i don't hate the federal government. i pledge allegiance to this great flag and great nation. mr. cohen: i yield as much time to the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i love my country. and therefore, i understand that it is the umbrellas on a rainy day. the reason why we had to reassess the army corps of engineers because we lost a lot of individuals in hurricane katrina. it was the dam that broke, i know it well and i walked those streets in the ninth ward and i saw the baby shoes and the clothing hanging on closets and the area that was destroyed and killed 1,000 people. regulatory structure, what kind oversight was given?

what kind of regulatory sure they were operating under. then people wanted us to get in and get something accomplished. d so i'm just perplexed that there is no evidence whatsoever that this will create jobs and it does not answer in any means about how this government can work better. i started to say to the gentleman from tennessee that we all love this country. we pledge allegiance to the flag in our schools and in this body. and i wish my friends on the other side of the aisle would find some other way that we can work together. they talk about the obama administration regulations, my friends, they have been submitting this over and over again. these are carried forward from the bush administration. this is not the obama

administration. let me close by saying, i want clean air. i want clean water. i want our babies to be safe in their cribs and playpens and i'm appalled they put this legislation on the floor as something new when this is as old -- and i might say, having limited value as we would say in texas, as something that would be very doubtful. i'll leave it at that, because we actually talk in texas and i'm not there now. we have ways of explaining how things are not relevant. this is not relevant. and does not equate to state legislature at all. this is not -- this is for the united states of america. you cannot put the reins act in place and talk about jobs. i simply ask that we defeat this bill. pass these amendments that have been offered by democrats that

want to make sure we address the questions by the american people and i leave this podium by saying, is it ludicrous to put on the place of responsibility of a congress a 70-day window for two houses to pass a resolution when we did not and we're not able to pass a student loan effort for months and months, which by the way was made better by senate democrats. mr. cohen: it is not reasonable and i reserve. ms. jackson lee: i thank you for your time and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: since 1996, the disapproval process described by the gentlewoman from texas has succeeded just one time. during that time, tens of thousands of regulations have

been passed and if people think that all but one of them were just fine, i would suggest that it's just the opposite, that the process right now, the inability of the congress to reign in egulations that are -- rein in regulations that are out of control, we need to come back to the congress. it's my pleasure to recognize a distinguished member of the judiciary committee and vice chairman on regulatory reform, he gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you very much. and i want to address what my colleague just said. i love clean air, clean water and safe working places, but we have a government now that instead of working with the people, with industry, is

rk agast them. the trust in our government is at an all-time low. scandal after scandal is plaguing the government. we have got to get people who are accountable in charge of those regulations, not unelected bureaucrats writing regulations that in the history has been overturned one time. nomic at is ergo furniture. the constitution granted us, the senate, the legislative the power, the power to write laws and rules that the american people must abide by. past congresses has delegated this authority. i don't know how many parts beer billions in water is safe. i don't know how many feet high a bar year needs to be. we have given this authority to

our regulatory agencies. but under this particular president, these agencies have seized that power and written more and more burdensome regulations going yorned the intent of this body. before we burden the american people with burdensome and intrusive regulations, the american people have the right to have their elected officials vote on it. this is how we are restarting some of the power that past congresses have given away and bring it back to where our founding fathers rightfully intended into the halls of congress. this is a rational way to do it. washington works best under pressure. deadline, welves a will approve it if it's good. and disapprove it if it's bad. that's what we were sent here to do.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i want to wrap up by saying this really is a problem. elected officials are not making the rules. there is no accountability. and it's going to be hard for us to do it. this is the first step in bringing the power back to the people and their elected representatives. the reins act is a commonsense way to hold government accountable and start to rebuild that trust that the american people have lost in washington, d.c. and that is what is good for america and i urge my colleagues to support the reins act. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i reserve what few precious minutes i have. i would like to be informed how many i have. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee has two minutes.

the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman and i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding and for bringing this bill forward. i'm a strong supporter of the reins act and why we are bringing this bill forward is because of the regulations that have been coming from this obama administration. when i talk to small business owners in my district, the biggest impediment they tell me to creating more jobs, the biggest impediment, are the rules and regulations coming down from the federal government. the reins act says if these rules and regulations are so important and have a $100 million impact, shouldn't they come before congress and state their case? what are you so afraid of coming

before the public body? president obama said he was going to be the most transparent ever. yet he has bureaucrats coming up with rules and regulations and we have hearings on this stuff. and when they talk about things kids' going to save lives, the rules have absolutely nothing to do with improving the quality of people's health. what it has to do is ram, inc. a radical agenda they can't pass it through congress. and if congress can't pass it, then you shouldn't go through the back door and have an unelected bureaucrat ram that through and cause a devastating impact on jobs. there have been 130 different rules under the obama administration, having a $70 billion impact on families. shouldn't that $70 billion of impact that is going to cause more money for food, energy,

shouldn't they have to come before the public body here in congress and state the case. if it's such a good rule, what are they afraid of? they don't want the transportation and ramp through the radical agenda and the reins act stops the unelected bureaucrats from doing that. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i believe all of the speakers on our side have spoken, except i have the right to close and at this time, i would await the gentleman's actions and i will be happy to close myself. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: we have had a good discussion on this bill and it is groundhog's day because we have had it so many times and gone round and around. of lessy has popularity than 10%.

and yet here we are trying to give this body more power over the safety and health, fiscal and physical of the american public. one of the gentlemen said i don't know how tall a dam has to be. of course he doesn't know. you leave it to the experts. we pass laws and instruct the agencies to come up with reasonable rules and regulations to know how to build dams and airplanes you can get off of in case of a crash and save people's lives and fire retardant seats. there are safety issues to be abundant for the american public. this is a bad idea. it is an idea that will not create jobs. it will hurt the american public. hurt safety. and possibly our financial safety as well, because it could impede the d.o.d.-frank from protecting the -- dodd-frank from protecting the american

public. so ild vote no to protect the american public and respect the system we have had for so many years for safety and health. i ask unanimous consent to enter mr. conyers' statement that i have here. the chair: the request will be covered by general leave. mr. cohen: i yield back the balance of my time and i look forward to hearing from pler goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. . . mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, a year and a half ago the president of the united states came to give his state of the union address here in the house chamber and stood at the podium just below where you're standing right now and he had a long list of legislative items he wanted the congress to pass and at the conclusion of it he said, and if you don't do it, i will. i'm paraphrasing, of course.

but the question that many of us had was, by what authority? in the united states constitution does the president of the united states have the ability to do something that is to come to the united states congress and to tell us he's going to do it himself in the executive branch. well, the way he does it, when he's not stopped by lawsuits and other means, is he simply, he simply has regulations passed to accomplish those objectives. and you know what? thousands of regulations are passed every congress compared a few hundred laws that are passed. and all we're asking here today is that for those regulations that cost the american people $100 million or more, that they have to come back here and be approved by the congress rather fiat controlcutive

that. this is the representative democracy here in the house of representatives. and in the united states senate. this is the people's house. we have the authority to pass laws. and we definitely are concerned about the welfare and well-being of our american people. but when we add trillions of dollars in costs to the expenses $11,000 an families, per family, that's a stunning thing to think about, what money could have been spent on other things. and, yes, of course some of those regulations are necessary. but, many of them are not. many of them needlessly add costs. create an ever-growing bureaucracy in the executive branch. and we need to have ways to rein that in. and the most effective way to do that is to start with the largest regulation, many pe wet

for all regulations and that ought to be our objective, to make it very clear that we do not want to see regulations passed that are infective, that are needless, that add costs. but starting with those that cost more than $100 million, it is absolutely appropriate for the elected representatives of the people to have the final say on whether those regulations are indeed what the congress intended when they passed the underlying laws upon which those regulations are based. that's all we ask in this legislation, it is reasonable, the american people want it, and this congress should pass it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on judiciary present -- printed in the bill as modified in the amendment printed in part a of house

report 113-187 shall be considered read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-187. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. clerk will he designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-187 offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 322, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, and a member opposed shall each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana.

mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i bring this amendment forward on the reins act to simply prohibit the obama administration from imposing a carbon tax on the united states. if they wanted to impose that kind of tax, they could not do it through regulation. and of course we've heard the obama administration, from president obama to his e.p.a. administrator and others, talking about various forms of taxes on energy that they want to impose. whether it's a carbon tax, where it's a cap and trade-type scheme. they've continued to throw out that opportunity to impose that kind of radical regulation by themselves without action from congress. and clearly as we talk about the reins act and we talk about any kind of regulation having over $100 million impact on our economy, we want to make it very clear that any attempt to impose a carbon tax would fall under that same definition of major rule where they could not do it by regulation. and so if you look at what's

been studied on this issue, because again this idea of a carbon tax has been floating around for a while by the obama administration, in fact, the national association of manufacturers, mr. chairman, did a study and it's titled, the economic outcomes of a u.s. carbon tax. let me tell you, it's not pretty, some of the things that they talk about in this study. if the obama administration had their way and imposed a tax on carbon, for example, manufacturing output in energy-intensive sectors could drop by as much as 15%. we're talking real job losses that would come to this country. what would it do to families in terms of energy costs? how would it effect them? -- affect them? in the same study they say, in the first year of a carbon tax, just in the first year, we would see ancrease in the cost of natural gars -- an increase in the cost of natural gas by more than 40% and the price of gasoline at the pump would go up by 20 cents a gallon. just in the first year of a carbon tax.

it would have devastating impacts on our economy. clearly if you look at what president obama and his administration officials are doing and saying, they want to keep the door open to impose a carbon tax through regulation. this amendment said absolutely not. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to oppose the amendment. i yield myself such time as necessary. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. this is a bad amendment to a bad bill. so it's doubly bad. this would take almost anything that protects the air, the water , public from carbon emissions. away from the opportunity of the e.p.a. to protect us. it takes the situation in many cities, houston, texas, is one, l.a. is another, but there's lots otih problems

with smog, and they have programs that they have to put a price on pollutants that cause urban smog and these programs are part of state-approved implementation plans through the peacekeep, to protect the air -- e.p.a., to protect the air. they are improving the air quality in houston and in los angeles. but under this amendment, if texas or california ever needed to change these programs, they wouldn't be able to do so. los angeles' had enough smog, so has houston and the rest of the country and we have to be able to have laws that effectively protect our air. public health programs are important and the amendment would risk the ability of e.p.a. also to have its sanctions that they put into place -- right now e.p.a., to ensure civil enforcement procedures, they change their laws every four years, penalties to keep up with inflation so there are effective deterrents -- deterents. this would stop those from happening and eventually the deit ternts would be less than -- deterrents would be less than

necessary to stop bad acters from taking risky behavior that causes harm to the environment and harm to humans. we saw in january transocean agreed to pay $1 billion for the three-month-long oil spill in the gulf of mexico, the b.p. accident there. b.p. also got the same risk. if we don't allow the penalties to be adjusted for inflation, they won't have an effect. the sanctions won't deter bad actors. we saw it in the b.p. deepwater horizon explosion and we see it in the clean air act, safe drinking water act and all those others. the bottom line is, this is -- this could have unintended consequences but its intended consequence is to protect the oil industry from regulations that imperil the american public. and this is a bad amendment to a bad bill and i would ask us to defeat it and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana.

mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. if i could go back to that national association of manufacturers study on the impact of a carbon tax, the gentleman from tennessee might be interested in knowing that that in tennessee alone, in the first year of a carbon tax, household utilities would go up by 14% and in fact they could experience job losses of up to 40,000, 40,000 lost jobs just in the state of tennessee, with a 40% increase in their natural gas prices. i want to point that out and yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, chairman goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this is a good amendment to a good bill and i support it. by requiring all new major regulations be submitted to congress for approval, the reins act provides a powerful check on overreaching executive action. this check could not come sooner. the obama administration increasingly and increasingly openly is pursuing unilateral regulatory actions to thwart congress' decision not to pass legislation the administration

desires. this includes legislation that would impose a carbon tax as part of the administration's climate agenda. the amendment guarantees that no carbon tax can be imposed unless congress can sense to it, no matter how much the obama administration would like to impose such a dramatic tax by executive fiat. this is the people's house. this is where new public policy should be established and this amendment is a good one to ensure that this is where policy related to carbon taxes are made , not in the administration. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: are y'all ready to close, i presume? mr. scalise: i'm prepared to close, mr. chairman. mr. cohen: i'll just reiterate i think this is a bad amendment to a bad bill. it basically puts the interests of special industries, gas and oil industry particularly, above

health, can public's clean air and the environment. and if you want to have an earth that we give back to the next generation, that's in as good a shape so their lungs can survive in it, you won't be for this type of regulation or for this amendment or for this bill and i would ask us to vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you again, mr. chairman. and as i close, i just want to point out that clearly the obama administration must be very interested in imposing a tax on carbon through regulation. the fact that the opposition has objected to this and stated all of the reasons that they think a carbon tax should be imposed tells you that they are holding out that opportunity. and of course if you look at the devastating impacts of a carbon tax, and there are a lot of good studies out there, but again i go back to the national association of manufacturers, very respected national

organization, people that stand up for american jobs, the report they did, titled economic outcomes of the u.s. carbon tax, are devastating. and clearly the administration wants to do this but if it's such a good idea, bring the idea to congress. bring it through the house. bring it through the senate. they could get their floor leaders in the senate to bring it up tomorrow. but they don't want this kind of scrutiny. just the other day the president was in tennessee brappinging about all these new jobs -- brag being all these new jobs plans he has and while he was doing it ironically, in another state, his new e.p.a. administrator was talking about climate change and in fact she called climate change the opportunity of a lifetime. that was her quote. and the e.p.a. would continue to impose regulations, despite what we think here in congress. that's not the way the legislative process works. that's not the system of government our great founders created them. said, if an idea is so good, bring it to the people's house, bring it to the senate and pass it that way. don't try to impose it through

radical regulation and devastate our economy. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have. it the amendment is agreed to. -- have it. the amendment is agreed to. does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in art b of house report 113-187. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? or seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house eport 113-187 offered by mr. rodney davis of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 322, the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: mr. chairman, i would

yield myself two minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer the bipartisan davis-peterson amendment which helps address the disconnect between the e.p.a. and our agricultural community. under our amendment, e.p.a. rules that have a significant impact on a substantial number of agricultural entities has determined -- as determined by the secretary of agriculture would be considered major rules. under the reins act, major rules need congressional approval. we view this as another way to give agriculture a stronger voice when it comes to e.p.a. regulations. as i travel throughout the 13th district of illinois and listen to farmers and producers, one of their top concerns is regulatory ctions by the e.p.a. ag has been a bright spot in our economy. for every $1 billion in ag exports, ,000 jobs are supported here at home. we expect $8 billion in ag

exports and we'll support more than one million jobs. s that good story and my threes and i on the house ag committee do our best to tell it. however our farmers are concerned that e.p.a. doesn't understand agriculture. we aren't the only ones to see this problem. e.p.a. reck newses it as well. when i asked if she was aware of the disconnect between the e.p.a. and agriculture community, she aid, we are working with those groups and i will acknowledge we have had some and we are doing the best we can to improve that situation. this amendment provides a solution to the problem by allowing secretary of ag to examine e.p.a. regulars and identify those that have a significant impact on a significant number of agriculture entities. the usda must be included in

these decision and equipped with the authority to identify these rules. this agency understands farmers and works best with them on a daily basis. we believe this would improve communication between e.p.a. and usd -- i yield myself another 30 seconds. would improve communication between e.p.a. and usda and would result in getting the government out of the way to allow our family farmers to do what they do best. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to oppose this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute -- for five minutes. mr. cohen: this is another way to support a bad concept. the basic concept is that any rule or regulation would have to go through a passage in both the house and the senate and the presidential approval to become effective and it would

have to happen in committees only on tuesdays through thursdays and within 15 days they have to pass it. basically, this is creating a rube goldberg type of legislative mechanism that would thwart the creation of regulations and rules that protect the american public and that's just plum wrong. now, what this does is tries to gut the e.p.a. and i'm shocked my good friends on the other side would try to gut the work of one of their great presidents, richard nixon, served in this house, served in the senate, four years as vice president, i think he almost eked out five years, he had some ethical channels as president he did create the e.p.a. and did some good environmental things. they should hold up the e.p.a. and hold up richard nixon as one of their standard bearers, probably served the longest time as president, vice

president, and senate leader and served on the house committee. to forget richard nickson and minimize his work, i'm amazed, because he's one of the great heros on the other side of the aisle. to make these rules go through the house and senate, we know the house and senate don't get along. they mentioned, yeah, we got the len bill through. that's the first thing we did since we did violence against women and saved the storm victims of superstorm sandy. we hadn't goten much done, a couple of post offices we agreed on them, maybe some coins for hall of fame, but to get these major rules dope it wouldn't happen. we're jeopardizes the -- jeopardizing the american public so i urge defeat of this amendment, it's a bad amendment to a bad bill, it's deleting the legacy of richard nixon.

the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i respect the gentleman's opinions, i was not credit in kindergarten when richard nixon served, so i don't remember that but thank him for reminding me. i would like to yield one minute to the chame tv o the judiciary, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, it's a good amendment. i say to my friend from tennessee, i was older when nixon was us in office, we're not minimizing what he did, we're going to maximize the amount of attention the congress pays to the e.p.a. when they get it wrong, particularly when the secretary of agriculture decides -- determines that any regulation issued by the e.p.a. will have a substantial impact.

it subjects such regulations to congressional approval before they become effective. this is an important step to rein in what is regarded as the most overreaching of all regulatory agencies. their actions and proposals have been particularly problematic for america's farmers, including small farmers. this includes e.p.a. actions aimed at farm dust. the secretary of agriculture has a greater incentive than potential nsure that adverse impacts have been adequately and accurately assessed. the amendment agree -- says that regulations that should be characterized as major due to their impact will be so characterized and submitted to congress for approval. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i'm ready to close whenever the ranking member is, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

tennessee. mr. cohen: i, too, was alive when richard nixon was doing his service, i remember him getting -- getting on that helicopter, there were regulations to make sure he could get out of washington and to california, we need to make sure the regulations are still in place so presidents like him can make their escape. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. even though i don't remember richard nixon getting up and flying away, i wonder if the e.p.a. would let that helicopter leaf washington, d.c. today. this is a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that gives our farmers a stronger voice and better place at the table when e.p.a. is considering these regulations that impact the ag community and i want to thank ranking member peterson forporting this effort as well. i urge my colleagues to support

it andt to say thank you, mr. chairman, to my colleague from tennessee for making this actually a lively debate tonight and hopefully a few more viewers on c-span are smiling this evening because of itism yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in house report 113-187. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker, for an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in house report 113-187, offered by mr. smith of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 322, the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, an a member opposed will each control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: i yield myself enough time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: as i have traveled across the eighth congressional district of missouri from my hometown of salem to the ozark hills and wright county, douglas, to the banks of the mississippi river, one of the largest concerns that my constituents have is the uncertainty surrounding the affordable care act. individuals are concerned about the relationship with their doctor and what their costs are going to be. businesses are left with the tremendous uncertainty. they are understaffed because they are afraid to hire additional employees and they're also firing employees just to fall below the 50 individual threshold. the effects of the affordable care act are adversely affecting the health care and jobs and the folks across this great country.

that is why i'm offering my amendment to revise the definition of major regulations to include any regulation under the affordable care act with over 3,000 pages of federal regulations already issued and many more to follow, congress must prevent this widely unsupportive law from causing further damage to our health care system. mr. speaker, there is broad partisan opposition to the affordable care act. the administration has demonstrated its own certainty through the delatos several key provisions of the bill. congress must assert its role in oversight an give the american people their voice back in government. away from the bureaucrats. my amendment does just that. i urge the adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes.

mr. cohen: thank you. this is a microcosm of congress. this 113th congress. the macro has been the 40th attempt coming up to repeal obamacare. microto try to -- micro to try to defeat obamacare through regulation. it seems like the preoccupation the other side has with what is one of the most important social safety network provisions passed by this house in history, social security, medicare, and medicaid and the affordable care act is amazing. we had 40 bills, now this rule and regulation, to try to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act. the patient protection and affordable care act means your child can stay on your insurance until they're 26 years of age. it means you can't have lifetime caps on your health insurance. it means you can't have -- be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. it means that being a woman

doesn't classify you as having a pre-existing condition. -- that hat at certain certain care comes to you, like colonoscopies and mammograms, without a co-pay and yearly checkups that can detect disease early and save people's lives. it's a way to provide health care for 40 million people in this country who don't have health care and it's been shown to drive down the cost of health care. for states that have worked with us and have exchanges we have seen reductions from 25% to 30% to even 50% in different states. health care costs are not rising at the rates they were otherwise because of the fact we passed the affordable care act and patient protection act. it's important that individuals get more community health centers, which come with this provision. lots of people, particularly in

my district, they don't live near hospitals and doctors. they need community health centers and community health centers have been funned and created to give people that opportunity to have access to health care otherwise denied. we're the last industrialized country on the face of the earth to provide health care for its people. the last industrialized country to do so. that is one of the shames that we have tried to cure with this bill, and this provision, this amendment to this reins act would deny people that health care coverage. it would say if you have a pre-existing condition, too bad you don't get insurance. as president obama said, the affordable care act is insurance reform on steroids. you want tav health insurance industry have total control without regulations, without controls, then you want to defeat it. but the american public doesn't want that. they want their health care costs to be contained and don't want the health insurance companies to have total control.

they like their children having nurns up until they're 26 and to have preventive care come without co-pays, not have yearly caps on your insurance or lifetime caps on your insurance benefits that can be paid out. so this is a sad state that we spent so much time in this congress trying to deny people health care and save their lives. so this is a bad amendment, i would ask us to defeat it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman. act ens act -- reins tries to strengthen our economy. you know -- this strengthens regulations under the obamacare, that regulation ha has 400 new authorities, 400

new way fers the secretary of health and human services and other bureaucrats to regulate the american people, local government, state government, health care providers, that one. imposed over the will of the american people. implementation of obamacare shows it's a detrimental and unworkable reform of the nation's health care system. one after another, promises made by the act's supporters when it was passed have been broken. moreover the obama administration's own actions to waive or suspend obamacare requirements have made clear that regulations to integrate the act form a seamless web. too often actions to avoid one adverse effect send ripple effects of unfairness or other harmful consequences through throughout the obamacare web, requiring ad justments to other aspects of implementation. this too justifies the amendment's requirement that congress approve any new regulations promulgated under the act and i urge my

colleagues to support this excellent amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from ennessee. mr. cohen: thank you. you've got a majority in the house that's against the affordable care act. you have a majority in the senate that's for it. to have any rules and regulations under it go into effect, the house and senate would both have to approve it which means could you have one house, not both houses, the way we work it's a bicameral legislature in the house and the senate have to work together and pass the bill to become law, but one house by not passing it could kill it. one house veto. this republican congress could veto every single regulation under the affordable care act. and then pre-existing conditions, no insurance. life-time caps, back in effect. yearly caps, back in effect. child's 23, nope, can't stay on mom and dad's policy anymore.

get hurt, go broke,o that's just wrong. and that's what this would do for any regulations. one house could veto and kill legislation. that's antithetical to the bicameral legislature. that's just one of the many reasons why we should defeat this amendment, defeat the bill and go on to try to pass a jobs bill. and kill sequester. and see that the national institute of health, which was cut $1.6 billion by sequester, isn't cut. that's our department of defense, they protect us from alzheimer's, aids, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. parkinson's. those are the enmies. mr. speaker, this is truly a the national institute of health jobs bill. and the department of defense when you're looking at over pa and we shouldn't be cutting $1.6 billion from them because we're and regulations that affect all going to be victims. the chair: the gentleman's time jobs, this amendment will help has expired. the gentleman from missouri. alleviate that problem. as i've traveled across the eighth congressional district, i've had businesses, one after the other, that said they had 56 employees. well, they were going to reduce

those employees because of one piece of legislation that was passed out of this chamber that congress never even took the time to read until after they passed it. and yet they've even passed it. the problem is the affordable care act, the problem with the affordable care act, it affects more than 1/6 of our nation's economy. 1/6 of our nation's economy. and because of the burdensome regulations that are being prom gated from the -- promulgated from the affordable care act, businesses are scared to death to hire additional employees and they are firing additional employees. i've had restaurant owners in our district that have sold restaurants because they want to fall below the 50-employee mark. folks, this is a jobs bill. less government regulation that is breaking the backs of small businesses is what we need to do to turn this country around. with that, mr. speaker, i ask this body to adopt this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. spur spur -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 113-187. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. latham: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part bsks of house report 113-187 offered by mr. latham of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 32 , the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. chairman. while my amendment is very simple, it's aimed at addressing a very complex problem. the problem of duplicative and conflicting federal regulations. in the underlying bill, federal

agencies are required to submit, along with the rule they want congress to approve, a list of other regulatory actions to implement the same statute or regulatory objective. in other words, mr. chairman, to actually investigate whether the regulations may be redundant. it's not clear whether the requirement to list other regulatory actions applies only to the promulgating agency or other agencies. the amendment clarifies that this list must include related regulatory actions by any other federal agency. earlier this year the g.a.o. delivered to congress its third annual report on duplication in government programs. identifying 17 specific areas of fragmentation, overlap and duplication for multiple programs and activities are creating inefficiencies. unfortunately these inefficiencies result in regulatory duplication, keeping -- heaping needless costs and paperwork on businesses at a time when our economy continues

to struggle enough already. a group run by former c.b.o. director douglas, recently compiled information on regulations in the specific problem areas identified by the g.a.o. using the government database contained by the office of information and regulatory affairs. this report found 470 related paperwork requirements, 642 million hours of regulatory duplication involving 990 federal forms. and at least $20 billion in compliance costs to employees. take these examples. we have three agencies issuing regulations on catfish inspections at a cost of two million work hours and $146 million in compliance costs. 10 different agencies handle medicare forms submitted by health care providers. generating 486 million hours of

paperwork and 281 different forms. nine different agencies administer higher education assistance programs involving 66 federal forms and duplication resulting in 47 million hours of paperwork at a compliance cost of $3 billion. congress must act to eliminate or consolidate duplicate and inefficient programs. but in the meantime, agencies must at least acknowledge requirements imposed by other agencies working on the same issues. and work to minimize burdens on our small businesses. according to the small business administration, it already costs american businesses at least $8,000 and often more than $10,000 per employee to comply with federal regulations. it's no wonder that the massive federal regulatory regime is consistently cited as a road block to job growth and economic recovery.

i believe this amendment will help clarify areas of overlap and highlight opportunities for reducing the compliance burden faced by american employers. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. johnson: georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. why do you seek recognition? mr. johnson: i rise in opposition to this motion. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment because it would add yet another onerous and unnecessary burden on agencies and will further stifle agency rule making. among other things, the reins act requires that an agency issuing a rule submit reports to congress and the g.a.o. containing a list of related regulatory actions intended to implement the same statutory provision or regulatory objective as the rule at issue,

together with the individual and aggregate economic effects of those actions. this amendment would add to that list actions taken or that will be taken by federal agencies other than the agency issuing the rule to meet the same objectives. such a requirement means that an agency issuing a rule would now e obliged to survey the vast penalty of federal agencies to determine what other actions are being taken by other agencies before it could issue a rule. congress did not create agencies, mr. speaker, to keep tabs on other agencies. this amendment would only serve to divert already limited agency resources away from protecting the american people.

this amendment is just the further effort to derail rule making. it's placing another burden on already limited agency resources and is really just busywork. so, for those reasons i rise in opposition. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: mr. chairman, i would like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: i want to thank the gentleman from iowa for yielding and i support his amendment. interrelated federal regulations are a common feature of the modern regulatory landscape. numerous major regulations form part of a web of regulations agencied developed to implement one statutory provision or one statutory goal.

in addition numerous regulatory statutes entrust rule making authority over a given problem to more than one agency. this is the case, for example, with the u.s. environmental protection agencies and the u.s. army corps of engineer's joint authority over wetlands. it's also the case with the e.p.a.'s and the department of transportation's joint authority over fuel economy standards. the amendment requires that agencies when they submit new major regulations to congress for approval provide a list of related regulatory actions that the submitting agency or other agencies have taken or will take to implement the same statutory provision or regulatory objective. seems pretty reasonable to me to have to find out what other regulations are impacting the same objective. this helpful amendment will provide congress with more complete information on the extent of regulatory agencies -- they have taken or plan to take to implement an authorizing statute or achieve a regulatory goal that. will help congress to aprove or

disapprove the submitted regulation. this can only approve congressional accountability and the regulatory process and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time? the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you. in response, i would point out that, with respect to interrelated regulations, different regulatory authorities have different regulatory objectives. and so to require that one agency survey the other to see whether or not there are any , milar or the same objectives ith no power or authority to decide to do away with a particular regulation based on an objective that is no longer suitable i think is not omething that this amendment allows for and it's also

something that agencies themselves are not equipped to do. i agree that we need to have some mechanism whereby regulatory or regulations can be looked at, modified, strengthened or weakened or done away with at any particular time. but this anti-regulatory legislation and this amendment will not accomplish that. and i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. latham: may i inquire as to how much time there is? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 15 seconds. the gentleman from tennessee -- rom georgia has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. latham: i would reserve and let the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. yons johnson -- mr. johnson: i would yield the

balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: the gentleman was talking earlier about opposing this amendment because it creates busywork for the agencies. what about the busywork that the small businesses that comply with this mountains and mountains of regulations? and my previous speakers have said, the biggest reasont peopl the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latham: is because of the cost of regulations. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. latham: i would ask for this amendment to be passed. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. mr. johnson: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 print in part b of house report 113-187. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 113-187 offered by mr. sessions of texas. house r: pursuant to rule 322, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. segs: i yield myself sun minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: tonight we engage in house to talk about some commonsense legislation that would in fact allow the american people and this congress to understand more about rules and regulations as they are presented that the american people have to live under. and tonight, my amendment requires an agency submit the report on any proposed federal rule to include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of the implementation of any rules that fit within the reins act. this is very important, mr.

chairman, because many times rules and regulations are implemented without a regard for what the impact would be on the people who have to live under them. we believe this is common sense. we believe this happens in businesses every day. a cost benefit analysis of the impact of the rules that are written combined with the impact that they would have upon a job, upon job losses, whether it be addition to the government or addition or loss to the free enterprise system. i reserve my time. the chair: who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. johnson: this amendment presupposes that regulations depress job creation. there's no evidence of that. the majority's own witness

clearly debunked the myth that regulations stymy job creation. christopher demuth of the american enterprise institute, a conservative think tank, stated in his prepared remarks that the, quote, focus on jobs can lead to confusion in the regulatory debate, end quote. and also he stated that, quote, the employment effects of regulation, while important, are indeterminate, end quote. nonetheless, i appreciate that this amendment recognizes his amendment that regulations could -- i recognize that this amendment recognizes that regulations could create jobs. i am, however, concerned about this amendment because it woult add to the analytical burdens

of agencies a speculative assessment of jobs added or lost and how much of those jobs would be added or lost to the public and private sectors. to the extent that regulations have anything to do with jobs, r. 367's proponents should overwhelmingly support my amendment, which is upcoming which simply exempts from h. reform 367's congressional approval mechanism all rules that o.m.b. determines would result in net job creation. this way, job creating rules not effectively be vetoed, which would be the precise result under h.r. 367. also instead of trying to make congress a super administrative agency, what we should be doing is considering actual job

creation legislation. we also should be talking about how to help middle class families who are struggling financially. an with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 15 seconds. mr. barr: i thank the gentleman from texas for the opportunity to rise in support of this amendment and rise in support of the reins act a critical tool in the battle against overregulations which is destroying jobs. the gentleman from georgia talked about whether or not regulations destroy jobs. from my home state of kentucky we have lost 5,700 coal mining jobs in eastern kentucky as a result of this administration's overzealous overregulation of the coal industry. they continually tell me they want to create more jobs and grow more businesses, they want

to put more food on the table and more money in the pocks of kentucky families who are hurting under this administration's war on coal but costly and burdensome regulations coming out of unaccountable regulations are coming -- raising their cost of doing business, leading to higher prices, weakened american competitiveness. while federal regulations wreak havoc on families in kentucky, small businesses and our overall economy, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats writing them are hiding behind the fact that they are not always required to fully analyze the impact their proposal will have on jobs. if you want to know about the impact of these regulations on jobs, come to eastern kentucky and see those lost jobs. of the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: in response, mr. speaker, i would say that the old ways of creating energy, or

producing energy, those ways environment, ur that pollute our air and water, and cause health concerns to the people of this great nation , those types of jobs fortunately yield to a brighter day of new renewable and clean rms of energy and that's a growth industry that if this legislature could only see the brightness of the -- brightness of the future, i think we would ve a whole lot more jobs created as the jobs of the past recede into history. and i will -- i will reserve

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. we have watched 25 million people in this country as a result of that same attitude that the democrat party and the president has about having jobs go off into the past and look to the future. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from illinois mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and 15 seconds. mr. davis: i would like to thank my colleague from texas, i'm a proud co-sponsor of this amendment. s that commonsense amendment that brings to mind the irony, the irony that yesterday the president of the united states came to the capitol to brief certain members of congress on the other side of the aisle about another phony jobs plan that he's putting forth and at the same time his signature legislation, obamacare, is killing jobs in america. this amendment would make sure that we measured how many jobs his phony jobs plan is going to

create, versus how many jobs obamacare is going to kill in this country. it is essential and forgive me, for give me, mr. chairman, for not having compassion on the bureaucrats who are going to be burdened by analyzing this information when we have millions of americans, hardworking taxpayers of this country, worried about keeping their own jobs and getting a new job. mr. chairman, i support this amendment whole heartedly and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: obamacare is resulting in 30 million to 40 million people having access to the health care system and that's not going to create any jobs? that's going to kill jobs when you bring in that many people into the health care system? ow many more doctors will be

needed? four million or -- how many more doctors, not four million accommodate 000 to to treat those people. how many medical nurses, how many medical care practitioners will we need to train in order to accommodate the growth in the health industry that obamacare brings about? i mean, just -- we have to use our common sense. obamacare is not going to result in job loss. >> will the gentleman. johnson:. mr. cohen: -- >> i -- mr. cohen: i find it interesting they're talking about the damage obamacare has done but the dow jones industrial average has hit

almost an all-time high so something must be working. thank you, president obama, keep going, and i yield back. mr. johnson: reclaiming my time. plan -- you know, i mean, president obama has had many discussions with my friends -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and 15 seconds. mr. wenstrup: i rise in support as a co-sponsor of this important amendment to protect and promote job creation in southern ohio and the entire country. business owners and entrepreneurs currently live and work under an executive branch hostile to the free enterprise system and a president whose governoring philosophy has been, you didn't build that. agencies like the e.p.a., health and human services, department of education, hand down new regulations with little regard for real-world

impacts. these bureaucrats don't care if jobs are lost as long as their rules are enforced. this amendment requires an analysis of how many jobs would be added or lost due to new regulations brought forth you should this or any future administrations. this amendment also requires the distinction as to whether the jobs affected are government or private sector jobs. this amendment further protects real world businesses from bureaucrats who are often punitive rather than constructive. and are often far removed from everyday economic realities. i stand in support of this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. tonight we've had three new first-term members of congress who have come on the floor to talk about things that are important to them and it's a balance. it's making a difference to

where people back home have confidence in the rules and regulations that are promulgated by the federal government and that congress knows how we can react and act upon those. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in part b of house report 113-187. for what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 113-187, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 322, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed each will criminal five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york.

mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: this amendment would exempt the nuclear regulatory commission from the bill so that the nrc can continue to protect americans from nuclear disasters under current law rather than the bill's proposed system. today's bill h.r. 367, in the name of so-call red forl, adds over 60 new procedural and analytical agencies and departments must go through before regulation can be issued. the result is simply to impode, obstruct and delay government accomplishing one of its most basic functions, protecting the health and weafer of its citizens. groups who care about protecting public health, safety and the environment such as the national resource defense council, defenders of wildlife and u.s. research group oppose the bill. according to the coalition for sensible safeguards which represents a coalition of many such groups this will grind to a halt the rule making process

and is, quote, nothing more than an attempt to promote business interests. americans should be scared that this bill will put their health an safety at risk. one example is nuclear power. the risks and dangers of nuclear power were made all the more real by the disaster in japan two years ago. we watched in horror when that country was devastated by the earthquake and resulting tsunami. that disaster then caused its own disaster, the meltdown of fukushima ors at the nuclear power plant that led to the release of isotopes a 20 kilometer exclusion zone around the plant and displacement of 156,000 people. inside the evacuation zone all farms is abandon. in 2011, virm was struck by a rare but strong earthquake felt up and down the eastern seaboard. it caused the nuclear power plant near the ep center to go

offline. for me this hits close to home. a nuclear power plant, indian point, lies less than 40 miles away from my new york city district on an earthquake fault. there are 20 million people living within a 50-mile radius around the plant. the same radius used by the nrc as basis for evacuation zone recommend theafed fukushima disaster. it also sits near two fault lines and according to the n.r.c. is the most likely nuclear power plant in the experience core damage due